From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Waite v. Clancy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 5, 2016
136 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

02-05-2016

In the Matter of Michael C. WAITE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Mallory J. CLANCY, Respondent–Appellant.

Michelle A. Cooke, Corning, for Respondent–Appellant. Christine M. Valkenburgh, Attorney for the Child, Bath.


Michelle A. Cooke, Corning, for Respondent–Appellant.

Christine M. Valkenburgh, Attorney for the Child, Bath.

MEMORANDUM:

Respondent mother appeals from an order that awarded petitioner father sole custody and placement of the parties' child and suspended visitation between the mother and the child "until she engages successfully in mental health and drug and alcohol evaluations, and ... recommended treatment, and upon successful completion of [the] same is reserved the right to file a [m]odification." Contrary to the mother's contention, Family Court's determination to suspend her visitation is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record inasmuch as the evidence presented at the hearing established that such visitation was detrimental to the child's welfare (see Matter of Christina F.F. v. Stephen T.C., 48 A.D.3d 1112, 1113, 849 N.Y.S.2d 858, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 710, 859 N.Y.S.2d 395, 889 N.E.2d 82 ). We agree with the mother, however, that the court lacked authority to condition the resumption of visitation upon her completion of mental health and drug and alcohol evaluations and compliance with all treatment recommendations (see Matter of Hameed v. Alatawaneh, 19 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 796 N.Y.S.2d 486 ; Matter of Davenport v. Ouweleen, 5 A.D.3d 1079, 1079–1080, 773 N.Y.S.2d 701 ). We therefore modify the order accordingly. Finally, as we similarly concluded in the mother's related appeal (Matter of VanSkiver v. Clancy, 128 A.D.3d 1408, 1408–1409, 7 N.Y.S.3d 805 ), the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her attorney's request for an adjournment and in holding the hearing in her absence.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the conditions imposed with respect to any future application for resumption of visitation and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DeJOSEPH, and SCUDDER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Waite v. Clancy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Feb 5, 2016
136 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Waite v. Clancy

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Michael C. WAITE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Mallory J…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 5, 2016

Citations

136 A.D.3d 1287 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
136 A.D.3d 1287
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 793

Citing Cases

Sharlow v. Hughes

In both appeals, we conclude, however, that the court erred in requiring the mother to participate in…